Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
By John-Henry Westen
NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.
While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."
In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.
The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."
Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".
The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."
Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."
Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."
Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."
Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."
And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."
See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/
Look up the Greek.
I have not found an online translator that will translate "Protokos," can you suggest one? Aside from that, does it escape you that to translate from Aramaic into ancient Greek and then into English, the potential to misconstrue words? From the moment of His birth, Christ was "firstborn" that does not presume further children. And again I ask, if this was so obvious, why was it "overlooked" for more than fifteen hundred years? And to take it a step further, in what precise way would the Blessed Virgin's perpetual virginity impeed your anti-Catholic beliefs? You can deny the Immaculate Conception and Assumption without denying perpetual virginity, same with Papal Infallibility, etc.
Yet most times a name is given, the mother turns out someone other than Mary. That is because the word "brother" and "sister" is used expansively, either as spiritual brothers or as kinsfolk. Jesus called "firstborn."
As a legal term. He is fuirstborn, regardless of siblings.
the force of a conjunction
whatever the grammatical category, it does not speak to the issue of marital relations after Christ was born.
Your reading of the Scripture is possible. It is however, not the only one possible, and yours happens to be heretical. Deal with it.
What a nice Christian attitude you have there.
Good day to you too annalex.
*Ok, I'm gonna try my hand at this sola scriptura stuff. Unguided by the Church who wrote and canonised the New Testament, I will take a look at this Scripture and explain its obvious meaing...
And Jesus said: Somebody hath touched me; for I know that virtue is gone out from me. And the woman seeing that she was not hid, came trembling, and fell down before his feet, and declared before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was immediately healed. But he said to her: Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go thy way in peace.
*Ok, it is obvious what Scripture is telling us. Other than a Father, who refers to a young woman as "daughter?" We read in the Scriptures the woman had an issue of blood for twelves years. IOW, she prolly just started mensturating. "Twelve" is, obviously a reference to when she began her period, because "for" can also mean "since" accrd to some scholars.
Prolly, Jesus had a daughter out of wedlock and she was having a tough time with mensturation etc. but she didn't want to embarass Him publicly by identifying Him as her Father, and thereby jeopardising His Ministry, so she just touched His garment...
And, young women were supposd to stay outsiedde the camp when mensturating etc
Hey, that was easy. And fun, and iconoclastic...
What? You say that means that Jesus was a sinner? Well, whatever. It is there in Scripture and trying to deny the obvious is just foolish.
Besides, scholars of today know FAR more than the poorly educated, superstitious, women-hating Church back then... (name one of them who had a College Degree?..or Access to Strong's Dictionary)
Anyways,so what would it matter if Jesus had a daughter? It doesn't specifically say He fathered a child out of wedlock anyways. Prolly, He had maried (Magadalen?) secretly and exchanged vows quietly...In any event, Fathering a daughter was quite common for religious men of his age - even if he, or they, had sinned or not. Children were valuable and they were useful to care for you when you got old..
Besides, whether He was married or not, Jesus had a Daughter, obviously, He identifed her as such and yet He still died for our sins and God still accepted His Sacrifice and we are still Saved.
What is the big deal?
Let's just unite around that essential and agree to disagree about all of these nettlesome, and, face-it, inconsequential inessentials. They only separate us and make for long arguements...
I know Protestants who are raving about this movie, who are scheduling group outings to go see it. My Catholic relatives have no interest in seeing it.
Yea, I got it.
Good bye.
I find it almost comical after rereading what you wrote to me in posts 2150, 2165 and 2167 (I'm sure there are plenty more, but those three are freshest in my memory) that you have the audacity to accuse annalex of not displaying a Christian attitude.
Regards
14 Wherefore, dearly beloved, waiting for these things, be diligent that you may be found before him unspotted and blameless in peace.
15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.
-- 2 Peter 3:14-17
btt
WHAT???!!! You mean people can misunderstand the Scriptures? The Holy Spirit doesn't move every Christian to understand everything? Amazing stuff!!!
Yes, incorrect Scripture interpretation LEADS TO DESTRUCTION! I wonder where one can get correct interpretation???
Thank God for His Church!
I think, for the sake of Advent spirituality, it is time for this Catholic to exit stage left. What about you?
Regards
Nuts. This thread is going to go round in circles for another 10,000 posts..
I am more than happy to discuss this with anyone Catholic or not. But, like you, I am growing tired of constantly debating with those who despise the Church and have no regard for Her teachings.
Romans...Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them
Titus...A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.
*The plain fact is nobody has cited these scriptures against you, so far.
I think folks have extended to you an amasing amount of patience and generosity of time. They have dug as deeply as they can to try and set you right about the Perpetual Virgintiy of Mary. And yet, you seem unshaken in the face of evidence your ideas are not seriously at variance with the heresy of Nestorius, among others.
Consider thanking those who have taken the time to share with youi their Faith and expertise.
I think they have done a great job and they make me happy I am their brother in Christ.
BTTT!
I agree. No logical argument will convince such people otherwise. After a certain point, it becomes an exercise in futility - and I have found - negatively effects my spirituality. Thus, even Jesus walked away from those who chose to reject Him.
Regards
Thank you borncatholic. I shall take Scripture's advice then and ignore you and your ilk. Good day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.